0
Original Article |

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Lymph Node Assessment in Stage II Colon Cancer FREE

Frances C. Wright, MD; Anna R. Gagliardi, PhD; Calvin H. L. Law, MD; Linda D. Last, CCRP; A. Eric Klevan, MD; Sermsak Hongjinda, MD; Larry W. Stitt, MSc; Neil Klar, PhD; David P. Ryan, PhD; Andrew J. Smith, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto (Drs Wright, Gagliardi, Law, Hongjinda, Ryan, and Smith and Ms Last); Division of General Surgery, McMaster University, West, Hamilton (Dr Klevan); and Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Western Ontario, London (Mr Stitt and Dr Klar), Ontario, Canada.


Arch Surg. 2008;143(11):1050-1055. doi:10.1001/archsurg.143.11.1050.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Hypothesis  Physicians seem to learn best from their peers, yet the impact of opinion leaders on physician behavior is unclear. Because colon cancer staging has been identified as being suboptimal in Ontario, Canada, we sought to evaluate the influence of expert and local opinion leaders for colon cancer on optimizing colon cancer lymph node assessment.

Design, Setting, Participants  A cluster-randomized trial including all hospitals in Ontario that identified a local opinion leader with intervention between January 5 and June 17, 2004.

Intervention  All 42 centers received a standardized lecture about colon cancer lymph node assessment delivered by an expert opinion leader in colon cancer. The 21 intervention hospitals also received academic detailing of a local opinion leader by the expert opinion leader and a toolkit.

Main Outcome Measures  Mean number of lymph nodes assessed in patients with stage II colon cancer and the proportion of cases staged with a minimum of 12 lymph nodes before and after a standardized lecture were assessed.

Results  Patient demographic and tumor factors were similar in both groups before and after the standardized lecture. Lymph node assessment significantly improved after the standardized lecture at intervention and control sites (P < .001). No additional benefit of academic detailing and toolkit provision in the intervention was demonstrated.

Conclusions  In-person provision of information by an expert opinion leader in colon cancer may stimulate performance regarding lymph node assessment for colon cancer. Academic detailing of a local opinion leader did not further improve lymph node assessment.

Trial Registration  isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN56824239

Figures in this Article

Colon cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death in North America.1,2At first presentation of disease, 36% of patients with colon cancer have localized or node-negative disease (stages I and II) and 37% have regional or node-positive disease (stage III).3 It is important to identify which patients have node-positive disease because these patients will often be offered adjuvant chemotherapy that confers a 15% absolute survival benefit.47In 1992, the National Cancer Institute suggested that a minimum of 12 lymph nodes be assessed to ensure adequate staging.8 A recent systematic review9 found that stage II and III colon cancer survival was improved when more lymph nodes were evaluated. Consequently, although patient and treatment factors can affect the number of lymph nodes retrieved, it is an important quality measure.

Adequate colon cancer staging requires clinician knowledge of the minimum number of lymph nodes to assess, an appropriate mesenteric resection by the surgical team, and thorough identification and assessment of the mesenteric lymph nodes by the pathology unit.10In Ontario, Canada, we conducted a population-based study11 that revealed that 73% of patients with stage II colon cancer had an inadequate lymph node assessment as part of their staging. Multivariate analyses suggested that patient age, tumor size, academic status, use of pathology templates, and specimen length were predictors of the number of lymph nodes assessed.11 In another study,12 we demonstrated that few pathologists were aware of the recommended number of lymph nodes to assess in a colon cancer specimen. Differences between optimal practice and the actual practice of surgery have been repeatedly documented.11,1318 However, traditional continuing professional development has not reliably bridged the gap between research and evidence-based guidelines and clinical practice.1922 Although it is currently unclear which approaches best improve physician practice,22 interactive and work-situated methods are believed to be effective.23 Because we know that physicians frequently turn to colleagues when they have clinical questions, the concept of an opinion leader is promising.2428

Local opinion leaders are defined by Hiss et al29,30 as physicians who (1) encourage learning and enjoy sharing their knowledge, (2) are clinical experts and always seem up-to-date, and (3) treat others as equals (humanists). Local opinion leaders may be able to influence physician behavior in a local health care institution.31 An expert opinion leader, a physician considered influential across multiple hospitals and who often works out of an academic center, is often viewed by physicians as influential enough to stimulate adoption of a practice.31 Young et al29,32 noted that opinion leaders are considered to be influential by surgeons. Despite this, a recent Cochrane Review33 found that the influence of an opinion leader on professional practice remains uncertain and suggested that further research is required to determine in what context opinion leaders are most likely to influence the practice of their peers.

We found that lymph node assessment was suboptimal in Ontario. The best way to change physician practice is currently unknown. To address this problem, we completed a population-based, randomized study to examine the effectiveness of local and expert opinion leaders on improving lymph node assessment for patients with stage II colon cancer.

STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN

This study was conducted in Ontario, a province with a population of 12.4 million and an area greater than a million square kilometers.34,35 In total, there were 99 hospitals in Ontario in 2003. Of these 99 hospitals, 42 identified a local opinion leader in colon cancer, and these hospitals were included in the study.29

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial with hospitals as the unit of random assignment at which a local opinion leader had been identified (Figure).36 All 42 randomized hospitals received a standardized formal lecture led by the same expert opinion leader in colon cancer. In the intervention arm, the expert opinion leader in colon cancer also met with the locally identified opinion leader in colon cancer to discuss the importance of adequate lymph node assessment (academic detailing). The local and expert opinion leaders had previously been identified using criteria established by Hiss et al.29,3741 Local opinion leaders for colon cancer were defined as surgeons and pathologists who worked at the local hospital who were considered to be knowledgeable, clinical experts, and humanists and who had expertise in colon cancer. An expert opinion leader in colon cancer met the Hiss characteristics and was also provincially recognized as being a surgical leader in colon cancer treatment.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Flow of hospitals through the trial.

Graphic Jump Location

The hospitals that had identified a local opinion leader were stratified, before random assignment, based on academic status and yearly volume of colon cancer cases (low is <20 and high is ≥20 cases) because earlier research11 indicated that academic or nonacademic status was an important predictor of the number of lymph nodes assessed in colon cancer. We defined academic centers as those hospitals in which pathology and surgery residents have regular rotations.

INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME MEASURES

All 42 randomized hospitals were contacted by one of us (L.D.L.) and agreed to receive a standardized formal lecture led by the same expert opinion leader for colon cancer. The lecture emphasized the importance of adequate lymph node assessment in colon cancer management to the local surgeons and pathologists.10In the intervention arm, the expert opinion leader in colon cancer also met with all but 1 of the locally identified opinion leaders in colon cancer to discuss the importance of adequate lymph node assessment, local barriers toward improving lymph node assessment, and possible solutions (academic detailing) and provided the local opinion leader with a toolkit containing a pathology template and a poster and pocket cards that emphasized that 12 lymph nodes should be assessed in colon cancer.41 The pathology template was included to enable synoptic reporting, which has been demonstrated to improve compliance with reporting standards.11,42 The poster and pocket cards were intended to remind physicians about the importance of adequate lymph node staging.43 Instructions to use the materials in a systematic way were not provided with the toolkit because it is hypothesized that formalization decreases an opinion leader's motivation to behave in an influential manner.44 Academic detailing of the local opinion leader was conducted to ensure that local opinion leaders would be in a position to express a supportive opinion concerning adequate lymph node counts when a colleague requested their views. A follow-up reminder package was sent 6 months after the presentation to the treatment group only. The package included a cover letter from the expert opinion leader in colon cancer, a peer-reviewed article regarding optimization of lymph node assessment by using lymph node clearing solutions, and more of the same pocket cards.45

Opinion leaders in the control arm were not told that their peers had identified them. Participants (surgeons, pathologists, and local opinion leaders) were not explicitly informed that they were part of a study or that colon cancer lymph node counts would be reassessed. The remaining hospitals for which an opinion leader in colon cancer was not identified did not receive an educational session and did not participate in the trial.

The primary outcome measures were the mean number of lymph nodes assessed in patients with stage II colon cancer and the proportion of stage II colon cancer cases staged with a minimum of 12 lymph nodes. Outcomes were assessed for 360 days before and after the standardized lecture.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Using a computer-generated scheme, we randomized 21 hospitals to the treatment arm and 21 to the control arm. Assuming an average of 3 patients per hospital at the final assessment, and an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.1, this sample size provides 80% power to detect an increase from 26% to 52% in the proportion of patients with stage II colon cancer having at least 12 nodes examined at a 2-tailed type I error rate of 5%. Hospitals were stratified according to academic status and hospital size. Six hospitals were classified as small academic, 6 as large academic, 16 as small nonacademic, and 14 as large nonacademic.

EXCLUSIONS

During the study, 7 hospitals, 4 in the treatment arm and 3 in the control arm, were involved in mergers, which resulted in treatment contamination and the inability to identify the original institutions; these hospitals consequently were excluded. Furthermore, 1 hospital in the treatment arm had no colon cancer cases after the intervention was completed and was also excluded. This left 16 hospitals in the treatment arm and 18 in the control arm available for analysis.

The effect of the intervention on the number of nodes removed was assessed using Poisson regression and using the generalized estimating equation algorithm to adjust for clustering. Logistic regression using the generalized estimating equation algorithm to adjust for clustering was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention on whether 12 lymph nodes were retrieved. Models included lymph node counts in the 360 days before the intervention to adjust for preintervention lymph node removal. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. A statistical software program (SAS version 9.1; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, North Carolina) was used to analyze the data. Ethical approval for this trial was obtained from the Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre research ethics review board.

PARTICIPATION AND RECRUITMENT

All 42 centers agreed to have a provincially recognized expert opinion leader in colon cancer provide a formal lecture on lymph node staging. These sessions took place between January 5 and June 17, 2004. All but one of the local opinion leaders in the intervention arm received academic detailing for 15 to 30 minutes from the expert opinion leader in colon cancer. The remaining local opinion leader received academic detailing by telephone and e-mail.41

PATIENT CHARACTERISTICS

No clinically important differences in either patient or tumor characteristics were identified between the colon cancer cases in the control and intervention arms 360 days before or 360 days after the standardized lecture (Table 1). However, there were differences in the number of lymph nodes retrieved, with more nodes being retrieved from the intervention arm (mean, 14.3 nodes; 61.7% had ≥12 nodes) compared with the control arm (mean, 12.4 nodes; 47.6% had ≥12 nodes) before the standardized lecture (Table 2).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient and Tumor Characteristics for Surgical Procedures 360 Days Before the Standardized Lecture
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Lymph Node Assessment Before and After the Standardized Lecture
LYMPH NODE ASSESSMENT: CONTROL VS INTERVENTION

Although a greater number of lymph nodes were removed in the intervention arm (mean, 18.1 nodes; 75.6% had ≥12 nodes) than in the control arm (mean, 14.9 nodes; 63.7% had ≥12 nodes), the effect of the academic detailing of the local opinion leader was not significant (P = .54 for the number of nodes; P = .99 for ≥12 nodes removed) when taking into account the greater number of lymph nodes retrieved in the intervention arm 360 days before the standardized lecture.

EFFECT OF STRATIFICATION

Stratification by hospital volume and academic status did not have a consistent effect on the number of lymph nodes assessed.

LYMPH NODE ASSESSMENT BEFORE AND AFTER THE STANDARDIZED LECTURE

There was a significant increase in the mean number of lymph nodes assessed and the proportion of cases with 12 or more lymph nodes retrieved for the control and the intervention after the standardized lecture (P < .001) (Table 2). However, no additional increase was noted when the opinion leader received academic detailing and a toolkit (intervention arm).

This study evaluated the influence of local and expert opinion leaders on lymph node assessment in colon cancer and represents one of the few large-scale quality improvement efforts targeting surgeons and pathologists who provide cancer care.30,4650 We demonstrated that a formal lecture by an expert opinion leader in colon cancer who visited the local hospital was associated with an increase in the number of lymph nodes assessed in colon cancer possibly by creating awareness among pathologists about the clinical importance of lymph node assessment. Academic detailing of the systematically identified local opinion leader by the expert opinion leader in colon cancer did not result in a further increase in the number of lymph nodes assessed. The proportion of cases with more than 12 lymph nodes assessed in Ontario has continued to increase after the completion of this study and likely reflects the influence of the provincial cancer agency's quality index, which was initiated after this study was completed and regularly reports individual hospital lymph node counts (http://www.cancercare.on.ca/qualityindex2007).

In previous research,29,32,33 surgeons have reported that expert opinion leaders could influence their practice. We10 previously described a successful intervention using an expert opinion leader in colon cancer to improve lymph node counts at a single center. In this multicenter study, it also seems that the expert opinion leader in colon cancer was influential. These findings support the work of Locock et al,31 who suggested that expert opinion leaders are important in the initial stages of an educational intervention, when evidence needs to be endorsed and translated into a form that is acceptable to local practitioners.

Local or peer opinion leaders are believed to be important in the later phases of implementation, when they model new behavior and give colleagues confidence to initiate change.31 However, we did not find that academic detailing of the local opinion leader or provision of a toolkit further increased lymph node counts. It is possible that the local opinion leader was not correctly identified, although the Hiss opinion leader identification technique has been successfully used by other investigators in primary care and specialist settings.37,38,40 Other investigators44,51,52 have commented that local opinion leaders often request instructions and suggestions on how to implement change, and, hence, it is possible that the local opinion leaders did not enact change because they were not sure how to improve lymph node staging at their site, or it may be that they have mixed feelings about the formalization of their role and, consequently, did not take on additional activities to try to influence physician behavior. Curran et al51 have also suggested that a lack of informal or formal social networks may not allow opinion leaders to easily contact other physicians and influence their behavior. Certainly, there were instances in this intervention when the expert opinion leader in colon cancer noted that surgeon and pathologist participants were meeting for the first time. It is also possible that academic detailing, which has been demonstrated to be most effective in changing prescribing habits, may not inspire opinion leaders to actively attempt to change their colleagues' behavior.53

This study has a variety of limitations. First, the design does not allow us to test for a causal connection between the lecture given by the expert opinion leader in colon cancer and the overall increased rate of lymph node retrieval because both arms of the study received this intervention. Consequently, the increase in the number of lymph nodes assessed could have been due to other factors, such as a general increase in awareness of the need to retrieve 12 lymph nodes, although conferences and lectures have not been shown to be effective in changing physician behavior.1921 However, we are aware from an exploratory study (reported elsewhere) that pathologists acted on the information by searching more diligently for lymph nodes and by using lymph node clearing solutions. Another limitation of the study was the context in which it was conducted. The study period was one of change in the Ontario health care system as hospitals merged to share resources and reduce costs. As a result, the intervention in 7 hospitals was contaminated in that hospitals previously assigned to different arms of the study became merged. A final limitation that we cannot explain is the baseline difference in the mean number of lymph nodes removed between the 2 arms of the study that occurred despite randomization. This factor was adjusted for in the statistical analysis. All other patient and hospital factors were equally distributed between the 2 study arms.

Further research is required to understand how opinion leaders can best facilitate the uptake of evidence-based knowledge. In particular, the role of how an expert opinion leader instigates practice change independent of a local opinion leader bears further investigation. We described a knowledge translation strategy that suggests that a lecture by an expert opinion leader in colon cancer may have prompted greater compliance with recommendations for colon cancer lymph node staging practice possibly by creating awareness among specialists of the importance of lymph node assessment, by opening lines of communication between specialists who previously did not communicate on a regular basis, and by providing individual hospital data. In contrast, academic detailing of the local opinion leader did not further improve lymph node assessment. We suggest that further research is required to understand whether and how expert opinion leaders influence practice and what tools or resources they may require to enact change.

Correspondence: Frances C. Wright, MD, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Room T2-063, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada (frances.wright@sunnybrook.ca).

Accepted for Publication: August 8, 2007.

Author Contributions: Dr Wright had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Wright, Law, Last, Klar, Ryan, and Smith. Acquisition of data: Last, Klevan, Hongjinda, Klar, and Ryan. Analysis and interpretation of data: Wright, Gagliardi, Law, Stitt, Klar, and Ryan. Drafting of the manuscript: Wright, Gagliardi, Last, Stitt, Klar, and Ryan. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Gagliardi, Law, Last, Klevan, Hongjinda, Stitt, Klar, Ryan, and Smith. Statistical analysis: Wright, Gagliardi, Law, Stitt, and Klar. Obtained funding: Wright, Last, and Smith. Administrative, technical, and material support: Wright, Gagliardi, Law, Last, Klevan, and Hongjinda. Study supervision: Wright and Smith.

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Funding/Support: This study was funded by the Ontario Cancer Research Network, by The Change Foundation, and by a University of Toronto continuing education grant. Dr Law is funded by a Ministry of Health Career Scientist Award.

Role of the Sponsors: The sponsors had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript.

Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Cancer Statistics 2008. http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/10/34/614137951cw_library_WYNTK_Bladder_Punjabi2005.pdf. Updated 2008. Accessed July 23, 2008
American Cancer Society, Cancer Statistics 2008. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PRO/content/PRO_1_1_Cancer_Statistics_2008_Presentation.asp. Updated 2008. Accessed July 23, 2008
Troisi  RJFreedman  ADevesa  S Incidence of colorectal carcinoma in the U.S.: an update of trends by gender, race, age, subsite, and stage, 1975-1994. Cancer 1999;85 (8) 1670- 1676
PubMed
Compton  CC Pathology report in colon cancer: what is prognostically important? Dig Dis 1999;17 (2) 67- 79
PubMed
Moertel  CGFleming  TMacdonald  JHaller  DLaurie  J Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990;322 (6) 352- 358
PubMed
Moertel  CGFleming  TMacdonald  J  et al.  Fluorouracil plus levamisole as effective adjuvant therapy after resection of stage III colon carcinoma: a final report. Ann Intern Med 1995;122 (5) 321- 326
PubMed
Wolmark  NRockette  HMamounas  E  et al.  Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04. J Clin Oncol 1999;17 (11) 3553- 3559
PubMed
Nelson  HPetrelli  NCarlin  A  et al.  Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93 (8) 583- 596
PubMed
Chang  GJRodriguez-Bigas  MASkibber  JMMoyer  VA Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99 (6) 433- 441
PubMed
Smith  AJKhalifa  MHsieh  EHanna  SSWright  FCPoldre  PA Multimodal CME for surgeons and pathologists improved colon cancer staging. J Cancer Educ 2003;18 (2) 81- 86
PubMed
Wright  FCLaw  CHLast  L  et al.  Lymph node retrieval and assessment in stage II colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10 (8) 903- 909
PubMed
Wright  FCLaw  CHLast  LD  et al.  Barriers to optimal assessment of lymph nodes in colorectal cancer specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2004;121 (5) 663- 670
PubMed
Abraham  NSGossey  JDavila  JAl-Oudat  SKramer  J Receipt of recommended therapy by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101 (6) 1320- 1328
PubMed
Coburn  NGSwallow  CKiss  ALaw  C Significant regional variation in adequacy of lymph node assessment and survival in gastric cancer. Cancer 2006;107 (9) 2143- 2151
PubMed
Distante  VMano  MPonti  A  et al.  Monitoring surgical treatment of screen-detected breast lesions in Italy. Eur J Cancer 2004;40 (7) 1006- 1012
PubMed
Ehrlich  PFRitchey  MHamilton  T  et al.  Quality assessment for Wilms' tumor: a report from the National Wilms' Tumor Study-5. J Pediatr Surg 2005;40 (1) 208- 212
PubMed
Govindarajan  ACoburn  NGKiss  ARabeneck  LSmith  ALaw  C Population-based assessment of the surgical management of locally advanced colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98 (20) 1474- 1481
PubMed
White  JMorrow  MMoughan  J  et al.  Compliance with breast-conservation standards for patients with early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 2003;97 (4) 893- 904
PubMed
Davis  DO'Brien  MFreemantle  NWolf  FMazmanian  PTaylor-Vaisey  A Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 1999;282 (9) 867- 874
PubMed
Davis  DAThomson  MAOxman  AD Evidence for the effectiveness of CME: a review of 50 randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1992;268 (9) 1111- 1117
PubMed
Davis  DAThomson  MOxman  AHaynes  R Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995;274 (9) 700- 705
PubMed
Grimshaw  JMEccles  M Is evidence-based implementation of evidence-based care possible? Med J Aust 2004;180 (6) ((suppl)) S50- S51
PubMed
Davis  DEvans  MJadad  A  et al.  The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ 2003;327 (7405) 33- 35
PubMed
Anderson  JGJay  SPerry  JAnderson  MSchweer  H Informal communication networks and change in physicians' practice behavior. Res Med Educ 1988;27127- 132
PubMed
Daley  BJ Learning in professional practice. N Dir Adult Contin Educ 2000;8633- 42
Parboosingh  JT Physician communities of practice: where learning and practice are inseparable. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22 (4) 230- 236
PubMed
Rice  RE Using network concepts to clarify sources and mechanisms of social influence. Richards  WDBarnett  GAProgress in Communication Sciences. 12th ed. Norwood, NJ Ablex1993;75- 93
West  EBarron  DNDowsett  JNewton  J Hierarchies and cliques in the social networks of health care professionals: implications for the design of dissemination strategies. Soc Sci Med 1999;48 (5) 633- 646
PubMed
Wright  FCRyan  DPDodge  JELast  LLaw  CSmith  A Identifying educationally influential specialists: issues arising from the use of “classic” criteria. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2004;24 (4) 213- 226
PubMed
Hiss  RGMacDonald  RDavis  WK Identification of physician educational influentials (EI's) in small community hospitals. Res Med Educ 1978;17283- 288
PubMed
Locock  LDopson  SChambers  DGabbay  J Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Soc Sci Med 2001;53 (6) 745- 757
PubMed
Young  JMHollands  MJWard  JHolman  C Role for opinion leaders in promoting evidence-based surgery. Arch Surg 2003;138 (7) 785- 791
PubMed
Thomson O'Brien  MAOxman  ADHaynes  RBDavis  DFreemantle  NHarvey  E Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2 (2) CD000125
PubMed
Government of Ontario, About Ontario. http://www.gov.on.ca/ont/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_O_A/.s/7_0_252/_s.7_O_A/7_0_252/_1/en?docid=EC001032. Updated September 12, 2005. Accessed July 23, 2008
 Government of Ontario. About Ontario. http://www.gov.on.ca/ont/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_0_A/.s/7_0_252/_s.7_0_A/7_0_252/_l/en?docid=004193. Updated March 4, 2005. Accessed November 6, 2006
Donner  AKlar  N Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research.  London, England Arnold2000;
Grzybowski  SLirenman  DWhite  M Identifying educational influentials for formal and informal continuing medical education in the province of British Columbia. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2000;20 (2) 85- 90
PubMed
Kaufman  DMHodder  RK A study of the educationally influential physician. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1999;19152- 162
Livingstone  DW Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning practices. Can J Study Adult Edu 1999;1349- 72
Soumerai  SB McLaughlin  TGurwitz  J  et al.  Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;279 (17) 1358- 1363
PubMed
Wright  FCLaw  CHLast  LDKlar  NRyan  DSmith  A A blended knowledge translation initiative to improve colorectal cancer staging [ISRCTN56824239]. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;64
PubMed
Hammond  EHFlinner  R Clinically relevant breast cancer reporting: using process measures to improve anatomic pathology reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121 (11) 1171- 1175
PubMed
Thomson O'Brien  MAOxman  ADDavis  DAHaynes  RFreemantle  NHarvey  E Audit and feedback versus alternative strategies: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2 (2) CD000260
PubMed
Ryan  DPMarlow  BFisher  R Educationally influential physicians: the need for construct validation. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22 (3) 160- 169
PubMed
Newell  KJSawka  BRudrick  BDriman  D GEWF solution. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001;125 (5) 642- 645
PubMed
Bhandari  MDevereaux  PSwiontkowski  M  et al.  A randomized trial of opinion leader endorsement in a survey of orthopaedic surgeons: effect on primary response rates. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32 (4) 634- 636
PubMed
Guadagnoli  ESoumerai  SBGurwitz  JH  et al.  Improving discussion of surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer: local medical opinion leaders versus audit and performance feedback. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;61 (2) 171- 175
PubMed
Kravitz  RLKrackhardt  DMelnikow  J  et al.  Networked for change? identifying obstetric opinion leaders and assessing their opinions on caesarean delivery. Soc Sci Med 2003;57 (12) 2423- 2434
PubMed
Lomas  JEnkin  MAnderson  GHannah  WVayda  ESinger  J Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines: delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265 (17) 2202- 2207
PubMed
Taylor  VMGoldberg  HIDeyo  RA  et al.  Modifying community practice styles: the Back Pain Outcome Assessment Team information dissemination effort. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1996;16203- 214
PubMed
Curran  GMThrush  CRSmith  JLOwen  RRitchie  MChadwick  D Implementing research findings into practice using clinical opinion leaders: barriers and lessons learned. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31 (12) 700- 707
PubMed
Pereles  LLockyer  JRyan  DDavis  DSpivak  BRobinson  B The use of the opinion leader in continuing medical education. Med Teach 2003;25 (4) 438- 441
PubMed
O'Brien  MARogers  SJamtvedt  G  et al.  Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;3CD000409doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000409.pub2

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure.

Flow of hospitals through the trial.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient and Tumor Characteristics for Surgical Procedures 360 Days Before the Standardized Lecture
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Lymph Node Assessment Before and After the Standardized Lecture

References

Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Cancer Statistics 2008. http://www.cancer.ca/vgn/images/portal/cit_86751114/10/34/614137951cw_library_WYNTK_Bladder_Punjabi2005.pdf. Updated 2008. Accessed July 23, 2008
American Cancer Society, Cancer Statistics 2008. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PRO/content/PRO_1_1_Cancer_Statistics_2008_Presentation.asp. Updated 2008. Accessed July 23, 2008
Troisi  RJFreedman  ADevesa  S Incidence of colorectal carcinoma in the U.S.: an update of trends by gender, race, age, subsite, and stage, 1975-1994. Cancer 1999;85 (8) 1670- 1676
PubMed
Compton  CC Pathology report in colon cancer: what is prognostically important? Dig Dis 1999;17 (2) 67- 79
PubMed
Moertel  CGFleming  TMacdonald  JHaller  DLaurie  J Levamisole and fluorouracil for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1990;322 (6) 352- 358
PubMed
Moertel  CGFleming  TMacdonald  J  et al.  Fluorouracil plus levamisole as effective adjuvant therapy after resection of stage III colon carcinoma: a final report. Ann Intern Med 1995;122 (5) 321- 326
PubMed
Wolmark  NRockette  HMamounas  E  et al.  Clinical trial to assess the relative efficacy of fluorouracil and leucovorin, fluorouracil and levamisole, and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and levamisole in patients with Dukes' B and C carcinoma of the colon: results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project C-04. J Clin Oncol 1999;17 (11) 3553- 3559
PubMed
Nelson  HPetrelli  NCarlin  A  et al.  Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93 (8) 583- 596
PubMed
Chang  GJRodriguez-Bigas  MASkibber  JMMoyer  VA Lymph node evaluation and survival after curative resection of colon cancer: systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99 (6) 433- 441
PubMed
Smith  AJKhalifa  MHsieh  EHanna  SSWright  FCPoldre  PA Multimodal CME for surgeons and pathologists improved colon cancer staging. J Cancer Educ 2003;18 (2) 81- 86
PubMed
Wright  FCLaw  CHLast  L  et al.  Lymph node retrieval and assessment in stage II colorectal cancer: a population-based study. Ann Surg Oncol 2003;10 (8) 903- 909
PubMed
Wright  FCLaw  CHLast  LD  et al.  Barriers to optimal assessment of lymph nodes in colorectal cancer specimens. Am J Clin Pathol 2004;121 (5) 663- 670
PubMed
Abraham  NSGossey  JDavila  JAl-Oudat  SKramer  J Receipt of recommended therapy by patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101 (6) 1320- 1328
PubMed
Coburn  NGSwallow  CKiss  ALaw  C Significant regional variation in adequacy of lymph node assessment and survival in gastric cancer. Cancer 2006;107 (9) 2143- 2151
PubMed
Distante  VMano  MPonti  A  et al.  Monitoring surgical treatment of screen-detected breast lesions in Italy. Eur J Cancer 2004;40 (7) 1006- 1012
PubMed
Ehrlich  PFRitchey  MHamilton  T  et al.  Quality assessment for Wilms' tumor: a report from the National Wilms' Tumor Study-5. J Pediatr Surg 2005;40 (1) 208- 212
PubMed
Govindarajan  ACoburn  NGKiss  ARabeneck  LSmith  ALaw  C Population-based assessment of the surgical management of locally advanced colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98 (20) 1474- 1481
PubMed
White  JMorrow  MMoughan  J  et al.  Compliance with breast-conservation standards for patients with early-stage breast carcinoma. Cancer 2003;97 (4) 893- 904
PubMed
Davis  DO'Brien  MFreemantle  NWolf  FMazmanian  PTaylor-Vaisey  A Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 1999;282 (9) 867- 874
PubMed
Davis  DAThomson  MAOxman  AD Evidence for the effectiveness of CME: a review of 50 randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1992;268 (9) 1111- 1117
PubMed
Davis  DAThomson  MOxman  AHaynes  R Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995;274 (9) 700- 705
PubMed
Grimshaw  JMEccles  M Is evidence-based implementation of evidence-based care possible? Med J Aust 2004;180 (6) ((suppl)) S50- S51
PubMed
Davis  DEvans  MJadad  A  et al.  The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ 2003;327 (7405) 33- 35
PubMed
Anderson  JGJay  SPerry  JAnderson  MSchweer  H Informal communication networks and change in physicians' practice behavior. Res Med Educ 1988;27127- 132
PubMed
Daley  BJ Learning in professional practice. N Dir Adult Contin Educ 2000;8633- 42
Parboosingh  JT Physician communities of practice: where learning and practice are inseparable. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22 (4) 230- 236
PubMed
Rice  RE Using network concepts to clarify sources and mechanisms of social influence. Richards  WDBarnett  GAProgress in Communication Sciences. 12th ed. Norwood, NJ Ablex1993;75- 93
West  EBarron  DNDowsett  JNewton  J Hierarchies and cliques in the social networks of health care professionals: implications for the design of dissemination strategies. Soc Sci Med 1999;48 (5) 633- 646
PubMed
Wright  FCRyan  DPDodge  JELast  LLaw  CSmith  A Identifying educationally influential specialists: issues arising from the use of “classic” criteria. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2004;24 (4) 213- 226
PubMed
Hiss  RGMacDonald  RDavis  WK Identification of physician educational influentials (EI's) in small community hospitals. Res Med Educ 1978;17283- 288
PubMed
Locock  LDopson  SChambers  DGabbay  J Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness. Soc Sci Med 2001;53 (6) 745- 757
PubMed
Young  JMHollands  MJWard  JHolman  C Role for opinion leaders in promoting evidence-based surgery. Arch Surg 2003;138 (7) 785- 791
PubMed
Thomson O'Brien  MAOxman  ADHaynes  RBDavis  DFreemantle  NHarvey  E Local opinion leaders: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2 (2) CD000125
PubMed
Government of Ontario, About Ontario. http://www.gov.on.ca/ont/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_O_A/.s/7_0_252/_s.7_O_A/7_0_252/_1/en?docid=EC001032. Updated September 12, 2005. Accessed July 23, 2008
 Government of Ontario. About Ontario. http://www.gov.on.ca/ont/portal/!ut/p/.cmd/cs/.ce/7_0_A/.s/7_0_252/_s.7_0_A/7_0_252/_l/en?docid=004193. Updated March 4, 2005. Accessed November 6, 2006
Donner  AKlar  N Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research.  London, England Arnold2000;
Grzybowski  SLirenman  DWhite  M Identifying educational influentials for formal and informal continuing medical education in the province of British Columbia. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2000;20 (2) 85- 90
PubMed
Kaufman  DMHodder  RK A study of the educationally influential physician. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1999;19152- 162
Livingstone  DW Exploring the icebergs of adult learning: findings of the first Canadian survey of informal learning practices. Can J Study Adult Edu 1999;1349- 72
Soumerai  SB McLaughlin  TGurwitz  J  et al.  Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1998;279 (17) 1358- 1363
PubMed
Wright  FCLaw  CHLast  LDKlar  NRyan  DSmith  A A blended knowledge translation initiative to improve colorectal cancer staging [ISRCTN56824239]. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;64
PubMed
Hammond  EHFlinner  R Clinically relevant breast cancer reporting: using process measures to improve anatomic pathology reporting. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121 (11) 1171- 1175
PubMed
Thomson O'Brien  MAOxman  ADDavis  DAHaynes  RFreemantle  NHarvey  E Audit and feedback versus alternative strategies: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2000;2 (2) CD000260
PubMed
Ryan  DPMarlow  BFisher  R Educationally influential physicians: the need for construct validation. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2002;22 (3) 160- 169
PubMed
Newell  KJSawka  BRudrick  BDriman  D GEWF solution. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2001;125 (5) 642- 645
PubMed
Bhandari  MDevereaux  PSwiontkowski  M  et al.  A randomized trial of opinion leader endorsement in a survey of orthopaedic surgeons: effect on primary response rates. Int J Epidemiol 2003;32 (4) 634- 636
PubMed
Guadagnoli  ESoumerai  SBGurwitz  JH  et al.  Improving discussion of surgical treatment options for patients with breast cancer: local medical opinion leaders versus audit and performance feedback. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;61 (2) 171- 175
PubMed
Kravitz  RLKrackhardt  DMelnikow  J  et al.  Networked for change? identifying obstetric opinion leaders and assessing their opinions on caesarean delivery. Soc Sci Med 2003;57 (12) 2423- 2434
PubMed
Lomas  JEnkin  MAnderson  GHannah  WVayda  ESinger  J Opinion leaders vs audit and feedback to implement practice guidelines: delivery after previous cesarean section. JAMA 1991;265 (17) 2202- 2207
PubMed
Taylor  VMGoldberg  HIDeyo  RA  et al.  Modifying community practice styles: the Back Pain Outcome Assessment Team information dissemination effort. J Contin Educ Health Prof 1996;16203- 214
PubMed
Curran  GMThrush  CRSmith  JLOwen  RRitchie  MChadwick  D Implementing research findings into practice using clinical opinion leaders: barriers and lessons learned. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2005;31 (12) 700- 707
PubMed
Pereles  LLockyer  JRyan  DDavis  DSpivak  BRobinson  B The use of the opinion leader in continuing medical education. Med Teach 2003;25 (4) 438- 441
PubMed
O'Brien  MARogers  SJamtvedt  G  et al.  Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;3CD000409doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000409.pub2

Correspondence

CME


You need to register in order to view this quiz.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Topics
PubMed Articles